12 Jan
2015
12 Jan
'15
4:50 p.m.
i think people we know can be easier to read/predict than people we
don't, which could convey a sense of safety to some, and perhaps
confusion to others who perceive that rules are not being applied in a
fair or just way.
the problem of how to scale conflict resolution as the number of members
and visitors grows i believe will hinge on the willingness of new
members to learn about our existing conflict resolution procedures and
A) volunteer to take a role in the process, B) review these procedures
critically in light of new evidence and take the time to propose
revisions. it would certainly be problematic to have the same people
who take care of the day to day running of the space also default to
mediating multiple simultaneous conflicts. we are seeing huge uptick in
interest in the space and our success very much depends on thorough
onboarding.
On 2015-01-12 16:40, niki wrote:
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
WRT Elliot, I
haven't been around enough lately to know, but it sounds
like we've kicked out many strangers for less and never thought twice.
It's so much easier to be lenient with a familiar face, but that's not
"fair"...
I think the notion of a universal fairness that can be applied to all
people in all situations is kind of problematic... I think applying (or
claiming to apply) the same rules in every instance fails to take into
consideration things such as upbringing, culture, class, education,
mental and or emotional ability.
I do think we should take into account the person and their
relationship to our community. Obviously, if someone is making someone
feel unsafe, I think it's okay to ask them to leave but the reason why
strangers are often kicked out for less w/out thinking twice is
generally because the relationship that *is* the community is not there
in the same way it is for people who we interact with every day.
I don't have an answer and I know that's probably annoying but I would
like us to challenge a cookie-cutter approach to dealing with
individuals and situations - at least to have a conversation about it
even if we continue to employ the existing model in the meantime.
Maybe implementing a system that is more nuanced is impossible on a
larger scale but I would like to consider it. A topic for visioning /
strategy session, perhaps...
N
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:11 PM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Eske Silver <eske.silver(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> We do already (or damn oughta) have precident for these
>> interactions...
>
> Sudoroom has many long-standing policies for this. First, any Sudoroom
> member is empowered to ask a non-member to leave at any time. Second,
> when a person's presence makes someone else feel unsafe, we ask them
> to leave and not return until the end of a conflict resolution process
> (if they want one). The process involves a mediator and steward having
> private meetings and then reporting back afterwards. Facts and
> arguments are not hashed out at a public meeting unless the process
> has failed spectacularly. We've never had to do that.
>
> Sudoroom values fairness, but we have always prioritized safety over
> fairness.
>
WRT Elliot, I haven't been around enough
lately to know, but it sounds
like we've kicked out many strangers for less and never thought twice.
It's so much easier to be lenient with a familiar face, but that's not
"fair"...
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]